Coalition for Sustainable Egg Supply Research - Dr. Janice Swanson, Chair, Dept of Animal Sciences, Michigan State University, from the 2013 NIAA Merging Values and Technology conference, April 15-17, 2013, Louisville, KY, USA. More presentations at http://www.trufflemedia.com/agmedia/conference/2013-niaa-merging-values-and-technology

1. Project Leaders:
Janice Swanson, MSU
Joy Mench, UC-Davis
Paul Thompson, MSU
Supported by the
American Egg Board
Social Sustainability of
Egg Production
Project

2. • Hen Health and Welfare
– Don Lay, USDA-ARS,/ Scotti Hester Purdue
• Supply Chain Dynamics, Economics and Labor
– Dan Sumner, UC Davis
• Food Safety, Security, Quality and Human Health
– Pete Holt, USDA-ARS/ Deana Jones USDA-ARS
• Environmental Impacts, Ecological Integrity and
Sustainability
– Hongwei Xin, Iowa State
• Public Attitudes, Discourse and Assurance
– Paul Thompson, Michigan State
Critical Study Areas

3.  Cardiff University
 University of Bristol
 Wageningen University
 World Society for the
Protection of Animals
 Safehouse Project
 Animal Welfare Quality
Project
 Farm Animal Welfare
Council (UK)
 HyLine
 Michigan State
 UC Davis
 Purdue
 Iowa State
 Tuskegee Institute
 Washington State
 University of Georgia
 Oklahoma State
 University of Minnesota
 US Department of
Agriculture - ARS
Institutions/Organizations

4. • Study team workshops (2008 -2011)
• Stakeholder Workshop: Washington DC (2010)
• Symposium 2010 – PSA/ADSA/ASAS
• 7 papers published in Poultry Science
• Developed framework for a large scale system-
based research project
4
Social Sustainability of Egg Production
Project

5. Coalition for Sustainable
Egg Supply
http://www.sustainableeggcoalition.org

6. • Comprised of leading scientists, research institutions, non-
governmental organizations, egg suppliers, food
manufacturers, restaurant/foodservice and food retail
companies. Leadership team:
• Conducting commercial-scale research to generate data that
will allow food system stakeholders to make informed,
independent decisions.
Coalition for Sustainable Egg Supply
6

7. • The CSES leadership team includes:
– Research – Michigan State University and University of
California, Davis
– Egg Supplier – Cargill Kitchen Solutions, Inc.
– Food Retailer – McDonald’s USA
– Animal Well-Being – American Humane Association
– Facilitator – Center for Food Integrity
• Member advisors include:
– American Veterinary Medical Association
– USDA Agricultural Research Service
– Environmental Defense Fund (non-member advisor)
Our Structure

8. Additional Members
• Au Bon Pain
• Bob Evans Farms
• British Columbia Egg Marketing
Board
• Burnbrae Farms
• Cracker Barrel Old Country Store
• Daybreak Foods
• Egg Farmers of Canada
• Egg Farmers of Ontario
• Flowers Foods, Inc.
• Forsman Farms
• Fremont Farms of Iowa
• Herbruck’s Poultry Ranch
• Iowa State University
• Michael Foods
• Midwest Poultry Services
• Ohio Egg Marketing Program
• Poultry Science Association
• Purdue University
• Sparboe Foods
• Sodexo
• Sysco Corporation
• Tyson Foods
• United Egg Producers
• University of Guelph

9. CSES Research Overview
• Three types of hen housing systems are being evaluated
• Conventional cage system
• Enriched colony system
• Cage-free aviary
• Across five sustainability factors:
• Environmental Impact
• Food Safety
• Worker Safety
• Animal Health and Well-Being
• Food Affordability
9

10. Conventional Housing

11. Enriched Colony Housing
Perch
Nest box
Scratch area

12. Aviary Housing

13. House Characteristics and Management
Conv. Cage Aviary System Enriched
Dimension (L x W x H) 464 x 84 x 20 ft 506 x 70 x 10 ft 506 x 45 x 13 ft
Hen breed Lohmann White
No. hens at 19 weeks 193,424 49,842 46,795
Hens per cage 6 - 60
Designed space per bird, in2 80 144 116
Welfare enrichment
elements
N/A
Perch, nest area, litter
access
Perch, nest area,
scratch pad
Ventilation type Tunnel Ceiling/perimeter slot inlets, Cross vent
Manure handling Manure belt Manure belt + litter Manure belt
Manure removal
every 3-4
days
Belt: every 3-4 days
Litter: end of flock
every 3-4 days
Photoperiod (Light:Dark) 16:8

14. • Construction and Early Research
– Some research began in November 2010 with baby chicks and hatchery
– Construction of commercial scale aviary and enriched cage facilities
completed April 2011
• Flock Placements and Research
– First research flocks were placed in April 2011
– Second research flocks were placed in June 2012
• Completion and Results
– Study complete in 2014
– Preliminary report early 2015
Research Timeline
14

15. Food Safety
Egg Safety & Quality
15

16. Food Safety
• Research sub-area: Exterior Egg Quality
– Measuring and analyzing shell characteristics
• Presence of micro cracks
• Shell thickness
• Shell dynamic stiffness (eggshell strength evaluation)
• Shell strength
• USDA grade (determined by both interior and exterior quality)
16Measuring Shell StrengthMeasuring Egg Dynamic StiffnessResearcher Deana Jones examines eggs for shell
quality defects

17. Food Safety
• Research sub-area: Interior Egg Quality
– Measuring and analyzing:
• Yolk index
• Vitelline membrane strength and elasticity (the covering of the yolk)
• Haugh unit (measures quality of albumen or egg white)
• USDA Grade
17
Measuring yolk index Measuring membrane strengthCandling allows one to look inside the egg
without breaking it to judge its quality.

18. Food Safety
• Research sub-area: Microbial Evaluations
– Evaluating microbiological populations on eggs, layer housing and
processing facilities
18
Salmonella enteritidis
Eggs on egg belt in layer house

19. Food Safety
• Research sub-area: Hen Immunological Response
– Monitoring immunological response of hens to vaccines
– Analyzing gastrointestinal mucosal response
19
Hens in enriched colony housing.

20. Worker Health and Safety
20

21. Worker Health and Safety
• Research sub-area: Respiratory Health
– Assessing personal exposure to gaseous and particulate matter
• Ammonia
• Particulates (dust, etc.)
• Endotoxins
– Characterize associations between different
hen housing environments and respiratory
health for workers
21
Researchers use this
device to measure the
pulmonary function of
workers before and
after their shift.
Researchers collect data by outfitting
workers with a lightweight backpack
containing a personal sampling pump.

22. Worker Health and Safety
• Research sub-area: Musculoskeletal Impact
– Defined required tasks for each type of housing
– Evaluating and comparing ergonomic stressors related to worker tasks
– Characterizing extent of musculoskeletal disorders (i.e. injuries and
disorders of soft tissues like muscles, tendons, ligament, joints, etc.)
22
Worker performs daily care check using moving cart. Worker collects floor eggs in aviary.

23. Hen Health and Well-Being
23

24. Hen Health and Well-Being
• Research sub-area: Resource and Space Use
– Characterizing resource and space use in the enriched colony and
aviary systems
• More than 300 cameras are installed in these two systems. Video tape allows
researchers to collect behavioral observations such as:
– How do hens use the space and resources?
– Are there changes over the laying cycle?
– What is the frequency of aggression and comfort behaviors?
24View from lower level aviary camera View from feed aisle aviary camera View from ceiling aviary camera

25. Hen Health and Well-Being
• Research sub-area: Hen Welfare
– Evaluating hen welfare using a standardized, performance-based
assessment on hens in each housing system
• Heat stress
• Keel bone deformation
• Foot pad
• Toe condition
• Enlarged crops
• Eye condition
• Lice/mite infestation
• Comb abnormalities
• Beak condition
• Skin lesions
• Plumage damage and plumage dirtiness

26. Hen Health and Well-Being
• Research sub-area: Hen Health
– Evaluating and comparing the health of a single strain of laying hens in
three different housing systems
• Recording daily mortality
• Determining causes for mortality by performing necropsies (hen autopsy)
• Breeder company veterinarian visits
• Blood samples

27. Hen Health and Well-Being
• Research sub-area: Skeletal Evaluation
– Determining the effects of housing on the bone quality of laying hens
– Biological markers in the blood
– Biomechanical properties of tibia and humerus
– Bone mineral density and morphology

28. Hen Health and Well-Being
• Research sub-area: Hen Stress
– Understand the impact of various housing systems on physiological
stress in laying hens
• Measured invasively (blood, adrenal weight)
• Measured non-invasively (egg corticosterone)
Blood films showing heterophils, red blood
cells, thrombocytes and variant heterophils.
100X of a heterophil and red blood cells.

29. Environmental Impact
29

30. Environmental Impact
• Research sub-area: Indoor Air Quality and Thermal Conditions
– Measuring gaseous and particulate matter concentrations and thermal
conditions inside the houses
– Using state-of-the art mobile air emissions monitoring unit equipped
with gas analyzers, air sampling control system, data acquisition
system and instrument calibration accessories
30Inside the mobile air emissions monitoring unit.Iowa State’s mobile air emissions monitoring unit.

31. Environmental Impact
• Research sub-area: Emissions from Layer Housing and Manure
Storage
– Monitoring gaseous and particulate matter emission rates by housing system
using mobile air emissions unit previously mentioned
– Characterizing manure/litter removed from each facility and accounting for total
nitrogen in the system
• Measuring the amount of manure produced by each system
• Analyzing its characteristics, such as moisture content, solids content, pH, ammonia
content and total nitrogen content
31Manure load out Manure storage

32. Environmental Impact
• Research sub-area: Data Analysis and Modeling
– Determining and comparing feed, water and energy use (fuel and
electricity) and egg production efficiency
• Egg production data is being used in assessing emissions on the basis of per kg of
egg production
• Shows feed and energy utilization efficiency
– Conducting modeling on indoor air quality, thermal conditions and
gaseous emissions as affected by the housing systems, manure
management and climatic conditions.
32

33. Food Affordability
33

34. Food Affordability
• Research sub-area: Production Costs and Revenue
– Assessing differences in input use and farm costs
• Feed
• Land and buildings
• Labor
• Disease and health
• Pullet costs
– Assessing marketable output flows and revenue
34
Feed bin
Outside of hen house Worker checking hens Egg collection

35. Preliminary Findings
Flock 1
35

36. Flock 1 Production Summary
(Week 19 –78)
*Lohmann white reference value (in conventional cage) *Preliminary data*

37. Hen Health and Well-being
Flock 1
Preliminary Findings
37

38. Preliminary Findings: Flock 1
• Hen mortality over the life of the flock was
approximately double in the aviary system:
– Due to conditions associated with egg production,
and
– Behavioral issues with hens either being excessively
pecked, or picked out (vent).
• Hens in the enriched system experienced more
fractured wings and legs during placement into
the house. 38

39. Preliminary Findings: Flock 1
• When compared to birds in the conventional system,
those in aviary and enriched systems both had a
higher incidence of keel (breast bone) deviations.
• The hens in conventional cages had the highest
incidence of foot problems, mainly hyperkeratosis.
• When hens in the aviary had foot problems they
were more severe than those in conventional or
enriched cages.
39

40. Preliminary Findings: Flock 1
• Conventional and enriched hens had cleaner feathers
but worse feather cover than aviary hens.
• Hens with large areas of feather loss lost more body
heat than better-feathered hens.
• Patterns of feather loss suggested that hens in
conventional and enriched systems lost feathers due
mainly to abrasion against the cage, while those in
the aviary system lost feathers due to aggressive
pecking from other birds. 40

41. Environmental Impact
Flock 1
Preliminary Findings
41

42. Preliminary Findings: Flock 1
• The conventional and enriched houses
– very good indoor air quality, with ammonia and particulate
matter (dust) levels being very low.
• Aviary ammonia levels tended to be 1.5 to 2 times as high
– likely due to manure on the floor not being removed until
the end of the flock
• Can be corrected with higher ventilation rates but that
will use more energy use -- illustrates the tradeoffs
between systems
42

43. Preliminary Findings: Flock 1
• Dust-bathing & foraging in the aviary system generated eight
to 10 times more dust than in the enriched or conventional
houses.
• Ammonia & particulate matter emissions from the houses
were highest for the aviary house, followed by the
conventional house and the lowest for the enriched house.
• Methane emissions for all housing systems were similar and
quite small.
• Electricity use was similar across all three systems. The aviary
house also used small amount of supplemental heat (from
propane) (about 1,400 gallons for the year), although the
winter during the monitoring period was milder than normal.
43

44. Food Affordability
Flock 1
Preliminary Findings
44

45. Preliminary Findings: Flock 1
• On the basis of per dozen eggs, overall costs
are highest for eggs produced in the aviary
system, followed by those from enriched
housing and then by conventional housing.
• Annual operating costs—feed, pullet and labor
costs – were highest in the aviary system,
while the other two houses were lower, and
similar to each other.
45

46. Preliminary Findings: Flock 1
• Capital costs per dozen eggs were higher for
aviary and enriched systems than conventional
due to the cost of the barns and equipment and
the smaller scale of those houses.
46

47. Coalition for Sustainable
Egg Supply
47
http://www.sustainableeggcoalition.org